Britain Is Becoming Weak

The recent actuality is full with news concerning the sailors and marines captured by Iran. How despicable the attitude of Iran might be, diplomacy is for the moment the only option in this affair, but at the some time some key weakness on our part are highlighted.

Some may question why the captured personnel did not opened fired on the approaching Iranian vessel. The answer is fairly easy, the Royal Navy is abiding to UN-made rules of engagement, so that the sailors could not fire unless fired upon. But at the same time a crucial weakness is also highlighted, inadequate air cover.

Had sufficient air cover been provided, the Iranian vessel would have been sighted miles off, by any plane and even dozens of miles off by a radar plane such as an E-2 Hawkeye. The air cover provided by Invincible class carriers, is wholly insufficient as radar planes or modern fighters can’t be deployed. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, it is also worth remembering that had air cover been provided, from a large aircraft carrier capable of deploying normal fighter planes, the war would have been much shorter and losses dues, to Argentine air attacks considerably reduced.

The British Army is currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and also needs to maintain a presence in numerous overseas territories, like Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands. Controlling maritime activities in a region like the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean require a strong navy, yet with the recent cuts in the Type 45 destroyer programme will severely affect capabilities in the next decade. The equation is thence very clear; it’s either a retreat from one theatre of operation, or a substantial increase in capabilities. The former would be unacceptable, first for our allies and secondly because the work is not yet over in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Increasing the capabilities of the armed forces, would have a certain cost but would yield some benefits as well. The first benefit would be to keep military hardware manufacturing, capabilities in the UK. The second one concern all the jobs and service providers attached to the armed forces, support in our armed forces would secure numerous indirect jobs and sustain the life of the communities where bases exists.

The Royal Navy deserves top priority in any investment program; we must maintain our decision to build two new carriers and study the possibility of having a third one, in order to maintain two carriers at sea on a permanent basis. Cuts made by Labour ministers in the type 45 destroyer programme, must be cancelled immediately, the original order of twelve ships must go to completion, and the possibility of increasing it to fifteen units must be investigated. In approximately ten to fifteen years time, Type 22 and 23 frigates will be in need of replacement. Studies about their replacement must be launched as soon as possible, since the French Navy will need to replace similar ships in about the same time, the possibility of cooperation should be investigated. While it is true, that the firepower of warships is increasing with time, a one to one replacement policy should nevertheless be adopted. The logic behind this is simple, the world is unstable and we might need to dispatch forces on a few days notice anywhere, what if Argentina decided to reattempt another invasion of the Falklands? What if an Islamic revolution takes place in a country like Pakistan or even Algeria? A one to one replacement policy, would allow us to keep the same firepower in the zones were we are currently presents, and to have a strategic reserve ready for deployment in home waters, thence providing a crucial quick response ability.

The others services, also certainly deserve a better treatment. Sufficient land air cover provided by the Royal Air Force is needed, thus any withdrawal of the third batch of Typhoon orders would have dire long term consequences. As for the British Army itself, investigations concerning an increase of its personnel by a factor of 20 to 30%, would be more than welcome in face of the needs in places like Afghanistan.

Most of the politicians were at best very naïve to believe, that the end of the cold war would mean an end to all major conflicts, since 1989 we had two wars in the Gulf, repeated sabre-rattling in Asia and the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism as a major threat. One of the reason why Irak stabilisation has been so difficult, is a lack of troops in the theatre of operations, the more troops you have, the easier it is to control any situation. Moreover when countries like China are about to trigger a massive arm race in Asia, being careful and prepared to any kind of eventuality is nothing but good sense. Britain was not entirely prepared in 1939 and could have paid a huge price for this, so one must always look back at history when planning defence procurement. History also tells us that, when Britain is a strong country, no one dare to challenge us. Armed forces are one of the first thing to look at, in order to determine if a nation is strong or not, so provide Britain with strong armed forces and Britain will be strong!

After all one Roman once said:

Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.

This still applies even centuries later.